Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision : 2.7.2013 vs Shobha Rastogi And Another on 2 July, 2013
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Singh Varinder
2013.08.02 10:37
Civil Revision No. 3717 of 2013 (1) I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3717 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 2.7.2013
Smt. Lalita Rani Singla ..... Petitioner
vs
Shobha Rastogi and another ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S. K. S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J.
The petitioner- tenant is before this court challenging the order dated 24.5.2013 passed by the Executing Court whereby the objections filed by her in execution of an order of eviction passed in favour of the respondents were dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially an ejectment order was passed against the petitioner on 24.12.2003 on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from 1.6.1998 to 31.12.1998. It is claimed that the petitioner is in possession of the property consisting of three floors under a single tenancy at a monthly rent of ` 15,000/-. The landlord is claiming that there are two different tenancies and the monthly rent is ` 15,000/- and ` 10,000/-, respectively. On the basis of eviction order dated 24.12.2003, the respondents have filed execution application on 22.2.2011, however, during the pendency of the aforesaid application, another application was filed for ejectment claiming arrears of rent from 1.7.1998 to 31.10.2012. Once afresh ejectment application had been filed by the landlord, they had waived off their right accruing in terms of the ejectment order passed earlier.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was fair enough to state that the learned court below in a separate proceedings had held that there were two different tenancies and that issue is pending before this court in a petition filed by the petitioner, however, there is no interim stay. It is also not in dispute that presently the rent is being paid only @ ` 15,000/- per Singh Varinder 2013.08.02 10:37 Civil Revision No. 3717 of 2013 (2) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh month treating the building in possession of the petitioner under a single tenancy. In support of the plea that the landlord had waived off their right to execute the eviction order, reliance was placed upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Provash Chandra Dalui and another vs Biswanath Banerjee and another AIR 1989 SC 1834 and of this court in Smt. Sarla Devi (Ambala Cantt.) vs Hari Ram Sood 1986 Haryana Rent Reporter 466.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Once the court of competent jurisdiction had held that there are two different tenancies, though the order has been challenged before this court but there is no interim stay granted and the rates of rent for two different tenancies as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner is ` 15,000/- and ` 10,000/-, respectively. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is merely paying ` 15,000/- per month as rent. Meaning thereby that she wants to enjoy the possession of the premises without even paying the rent and raising a technical plea of waiver which, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case is not available to the petitioner seeing her conduct.
For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed.
2.7.2013 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge